Full BBC article here, and interesting comment piece from the Guardian here. I just wanted to see what some people's opinions on this were? I, for one, applaud what they are doing by highlighting the discrimination which is still institutionalised against homosexuals. Why should there be a legal distinction between a civil-partnership and a marriage, to the extent where you're not even allowed to call a civil-partnership a marriage or involve any religious aspect, even if your faith has no problems with it (why a religion should be allowed to discriminate is another issue, but one which I will not go into here). Of course some may say that there is very little practical distinction between the two, and this is just causing a fuss over terminology. I would be interested to see what others' views on this are.
I think that it was a brilliant move by the couple to highlight the non-sensical and archaic nature of the law on these matters. I totally agree with the article in the Guardian.
at least they didn't call it the butt packer union.. think the issue is with sodomy and religion in general.. ask any old guy what he thinks about sodomy XD your in for some comedy
I completely agree with the sentiment of the protest and that the default state of 'marriage' as a legal entity ought to be utterly separate from any religious concept. Whatever that is, same-sex unions should get it too; personally, I think the smartest thing is to give everyone Civil Partnerships and they can call it whatever the hell they like in the photo albums. The legal status is the important bit. Note however that this kind of protest is not without it's pitfalls. The case of Wilkinson v Kitzinger & Others (that's [2006] HRLR 36 if anyone else cares) shows that this change is coming but forcing it through protest cases like these is often not smart. In that case trying to force legal recognition of civil union as marriage set back the cause for what I suspect will be decades by forcing the Lords' hand into setting negative precedent: And now, they won't review the decision confirming marriage as the union between a man and a woman for years. We'll have to hope this one turns out better.
Good on them. There is no reason that same-sex couples cannot be afforded the same rights regarding marriage as straight couples, and that includes the naming convention of it as far as I am concerned.
Well its absurd, but in exactly the same way that gay couples can have a "civil union", aka marriage in all but the term, but not "married". The only fair (and legal) way to do things is allowed all couples entirely equal rights, so any couple can get married or a civil union. I'm an atheist and would rather have a civil union than a marriage before god or any of that ********, but theres plenty of religious, yet gay couples who would like to be married in a church before god. Surely its not a stretch to allow everyone to do what they want.
It's all semantics. Religious, heterosexual people can get married in a church, but the whole service is only binding as far as that particular religion is concerned. After the ceremony, the happy couple still has to file the proper paperwork with their respective local government to enjoy the full legal benefits of being married. A heterosexual couple (religious or otherwise) can also opt to get married by a justice of the peace. The service is non-religious, and after the ceremony the newlyweds are still required to file the same government paperwork. So, why can't homosexual couples just get married like anyone else? Religious organizations, being private in nature, can decide what they do and don't allow - though personally I'd like to see more acceptance all around. But I don't see any reason why a gay couple can't get married under a justice of the peace like any other couple. The whole "marriage" vs. "civil union" thing is just a euphemism for prejudice, in my opinion. We might as well give them their own drinking fountains while we're at it. Start breaking down the ridiculous walls, and soon society might become more accepting of those around them. As more and more people grow up with tolerance around them, the major religions might start to change as well. Of course, no matter how much progress we make, some people will always be ignorant. -monkey
Well, the thing is, that marriage IS a religious institution, and a civil union is a secular institution. The same separation of church and state that guarantees there is no state religion also effectively interferes with them tampering with what the definition of marriage is. You can go as far back as you want, the rites of marriage are always covered under some religion's auspices, if for no other reason than to bless the couple with fertility. Speaking from a Judeo-Christian standpoint, the concept of church-sanctioned gay marriage is about as possible as the concept of the church meth lab-it's simply seen as enabling a behavior. In my eyes, it's another symptom of fallen man-it's no worse than the person who fibs, and no better than murder or theft or any other sin-and to be even more explicit, the act is the part that we're told is wrong. At no point were we ever told that the feeling, the thought, the temptation is anything other than the lot of mankind in this world. That temptation itself is not a sin, but that any temptation given into is, and that makes a level playing field. For my own part, while I could not in good conscience ever give the ceremony of marriage for a homosexual couple, I have no problem with recognizing that civil union as binding, and treating them as spouses. They could sit in my congregation, sing in my choir, teach my children, and avail themselves of any service of my church-and I would publicly challenge anyone who said otherwise. Just because I disagree with a lifestyle choice does not mean that I am entitled to at any point mistreat a human being-but that does not extend to scrapping the tenets of my belief just to make someone feel better about a choice they're making, ESPECIALLY when I consider it such a poor one. As to the equality of a civil union, well, being a secular institution, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed one (after explaining why it won't go vice versa.) Black, white, purple or polka dotted, the state don't much care so long as you pay taxes. If they pay taxes, give them whatever union they want. That's equality-isn't that what the state says it stands for? As Voltaire said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I don't agree with this hullaballoo, but truth be told as far as civil matters are concerned, I have no issue with people entering into a contract that legally defines right-to-life, living wills, insurance, benefits, and custody. In fact, there's a lot of good to come of that concept. However, speaking as a minister, the state cares about the corpus, the church cares about spiritus, and the twain seldom meet. Realistically speaking, especially around here, if you tried that, you'd be lynched. Or have a cross burned on your yard. The last person who was dragged to death was 1999. Attempting to meddle with the definition of marriage in most areas and most cultures is just asking for a rock thrown through your window. I lost a very prominent job over the fact that I was willing to be completely open to homosexuals joining the congregation. They tossed both them and me out. In many areas of the country, the tension is reaching a breaking point. There will come a day when people will stop paying taxes and start stringing up government officials (happened already once this year) because of their continued perceived interference in matters they have no business in. I'm sure the hate will pour in after this, but I"m not arsed-I'm used to it, as my job is incredibly unpopular apparently anyway. I do want people to know though that while we may not "marry" homosexuals, that there are a lot of level-headed, clear thinking Christians who will acknowledge their civil union and give them all the due respect that deserves. As for separate but equal? We have men's and women's bathrooms, don't we?
Excellent post! I really hope that's where this ends up, Civil Unions for all and if you want to do the church thing, then have at it. I see this as being very similar to the Civil Rights movement in the 60s, and as Kayin said, there may well be violence before it's over. Let me restate that, there has already been violence over this issue, but there may be outright rebellion before this is over. At the risk of over-generalizing, these are many of the same people who are still pissed the South lost the civil war 150-odd years ago! I think society will progress slowly towards general acceptance and there will always be about 20% of the populating who are rabidly opposed to gay marriage, or racial integration, or women in the workplace or whatever. As a nation we have a long way to go, but the general curve of history is encouraging. Ever heard of the potty parity debate? :wink:
Interesting post. But its important to point out that the link is about a UK couple in the UK, not the States. Because we *DON'T* (sadly) have separation of church and state in the UK, your points arent quite relevant for what we do in the UK. And the issues you discuss are completely different than the UK, I can see your from Alabama which is poles apart from modern UK life. We may speak the same language, but in virtually every other way, we are completely different. And I'm curious to see why you think the government insuring that everyone has equal rights to get married constitutes government interference where it isnt needed? Otherwise we'd simply still have slavery in the states because its not the government's job to make sure that everyone has a free life and the right to choose their own destiny.
I'm quite sure they do - catholic priests have been outed for it before - but its definitely a case of "Do as I say, not as I do" from the catholic church.
That is not entirely true. Many cultures have a concept of 'marriage' that are independent of their religious beliefs. Of course we could get lost in semantics (do e.g. the Native Americans really have "marriage", or do they just have their cultural equivalent of a civil partnership, and is "marriage" a term reserved for the concept of a bond between man and woman as understood by the church?) but the fact is: marriage was around long before any of the main religions were. If we go back as far as we want. And if we look within the religious domain, the Catholic Church used to allow a posthumous marriage between a living person and a deceased one if they had a significant relationship in life (quite a sensible rule, IMO); nuns are said to be married to Jesus (a.k.a. to a God --never knew he was polygamous). In some Indian religions a person can marry a plant (gender optional) to deflect a curse put on their intended; after this ceremony (and because the marriage to the plant obviously is not consummated) the person can safely marry their betrothed. That is kind of arbitrary prejudice (the Bible has never been able to satisfactorily explain to me why homosexuality is wrong), but if that is your opinion, you're entitled to it, as long as it does not interfere with other people's lives. What the church is not entitled to is a monopoly on the concept of 'marriage' --and most certainly not in the secular, legal domain. It was around long before the church was. But every time the State considers making secular marriage available to same-sex couples, we have the religious crowd objecting most strongly. Obviously the separation between church and state is an osmotic wall that works only in one direction. This is not about you compromising your religious beliefs to make others feel better about their lifestyle choice. Churches can still deny the religious ceremony of a wedding to gay couples if they want. But churches have no say over the legal, secular concept of marriage. The state does not have to invent a separate civil partnership just so that religious people can feel better about their lifestyle choice. Well, that was what Jesus was all about, remember? And look how he ended up. But someone had to make a stand, and he obviously felt very strongly that based on his beliefs and principles he should do it. So well done for following his example (and I sincerely mean that). The problem is that all these people ready to string up government officials for interfering in "their" business are actually interfering in other people's. They are not objecting to the government telling them how to live or what to believe; they are just pissed at the government telling them that they can't tell others how to live or what to believe. Religious groups like nothing better than telling other people what they should believe or how they should live --it is what all religious wars and policies of conversion (often explicitly laid down in the scriptures) are about. Last time I checked, no Christian, Muslim or any other religious person was harmed in the secular marriage of a gay couple. It did not somehow devalue the sanctity of their own religious marriage. But some believers obviously feel it does, and that is because most religions, whether you like it or not, have inescapable tribal dynamics. In-group out-group: We are better than Them; They are only acceptable on Our terms. Except that they are wrong, really, and sinners, and therefore they cannot have what we perceive to be our special, patented relationship. Sorry, but marriage is not your idea to hog. It was there first. The US and South Africa also used to have separate drinking fountains for Black and White people. Your point?
This is news? 10 years ago I had to get married because the US refused us the same thing. They still do, as does the German government.
Some people will do anything to get in the paper, although I do like the fact they're highlighting the discrimination against heterosexual people. More and more gay people in my experience are shelling out abuse to straight people because they're straight.
Well first, it was segregation against Blacks and whites, now its gay and lesbian marriage. I'm not sure the hole thing in the UK, but here, there's that saying, all men were created equal, so why so segregation? I mean seriously? It shouldnt really matter. This just shows that we still aren't accepting homosexuals. Personally, I am all for them having rights. I mean why shouldn't they. And where in the law (both UK and US) does it say that marriage is between a man and a woman? I know there is a anti-polygamy clause, but it doesnt actually say that it is between a man and a woman does it? If so, would it say that 10 and 20 years ago? Some food for thought. Also, Nexxo, + infinite rep for the Catholic comment
If you exclude a group, they will marginalise. Then they will rally and start to compete. If straight people don't like taking it they should not have been dishing it out. It is frustrating when you feel that you're paying foe the prejuduce of others, but then again, we all do, all the time.
Some laws are unbelivelably stupid. I totally agree with this couple wanting to contest the law and have a civil partnership. It, as the article says "Hetrophobic" marriage is normally a religious ceremony, being married before God etc, for those that are not religious the other choice (for straight couples) is marriage in a registery office, But why cannot it be a civil- partnership? Good for them!! hope they win (it only took a few years for gay couples to be able to be "married") and that it doesnt take long. They don't openly admit it, being a sin and all. and priests accused of this, arent cast out of the church, they are moved to a different one......... Watch Stephen Lynch's song about an alter boy,. its hilirous, as is most of his set. Will try and see if i can dig out the link
